Wallace - The Farce of Physics (1994).pdf - Energy from the Vacuum - andreas50_54

The Farce of Physics: Table of Contents

The Farce of Physics

Texinfo Edition 1.01, November 1994

by Bryan G. Wallace

Table of Contents

Introduction

l Sacred Science

l Pathological Physics

l Mathematical Magic

Publication Politics

Light Lunacy

l Relativity Revolution

l Ultimate Unification

l References

Created using Lionel Con's texi2html 1.30.1j (additions by -joke)

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_toc.html1.6.2005 1:46:51

The Farce of Physics: Introduction

Bryan G. Wallace

7210 12th. Ave. No.

St. Petersburg, FL. 33710

Ph. (813) 347-9309

Soc. Sec. Num. 262-42-5891

The Farce of Physics, 49195 words.

This is Texinfo edition 1.01 of `farce.texi' as of 6 November 1994.

Published 1994 by The WindSpiel Company.

Introduction

A 1986 Harris poll found that about 70 percent of the responding adult Americans described

themselves as interested in science and technology, and they said their understanding of the subject

was very good or adequate. [153] The word scientist entered the English language in 1840, and few

individuals earned a living doing research, with most of the investigations carried out by gentlemen

of wealth and leisure. At that time, a handful of American scientist were taking steps to transform

their status and image and separate themselves as professionals from those they considered amateurs.

[154] The major tactic used to create this artificial separation has been the elaborate use of technical

jargon and complex mathematics. This erection of higher and higher barriers to the comprehension of

scientific affairs is a threat to an essential characteristic of science, its openness to outside

examination and appraisal. [155]

Because of this, modern theoretical physics has become to a large degree, little more than an

elaborate farce. I will attempt to explore and document this argument, and this book is meant for

anyone who is interested in this subject. I have tried to reduce the technical jargon and mathematics

to a minimum in order to reach the widest possible audience. If the reader finds parts that are hard to

understand, just skip them, and perhaps come back to them later if you decide to explore that part in

greater detail. You should realize that in general only about 90% of professional physicists are able to

make sense of less than 10% of what other physicists say. [156]

For the past 50 years most of the scientific research has been funded by the federal government, and

the number of Ph.D. scientists working in the U.S. has far outstripped the growth of the population as

a whole. President Eisenhower stated that "in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as

we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself

become the captive of a scientific-technological elite." [150]

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_1.html (1 of 2)1.6.2005 1:47:03

The Farce of Physics: Introduction

You the taxpayer fund this research, and you also enjoy the benefits that legitimate research can

bring. That is why it is important to understand what you are getting for your money, and for you to

inform your elected representatives when you think your precious tax dollars are being wasted. This

book is a journey through my career as a physicist, giving the interesting details of the many events,

arguments, and evidence encountered along the way. I suspect that the reader will discover that the

truth can be stranger than fiction.

The term physics was derived from the Greek word "physis" for nature, and the roots of physics lies

in the first period of Greek philosophy in the sixth century B.C., where science, philosophy and

religion were not separated. The aim of physics is to discover the essential nature of all things, and it

lies at the base of all of natural science.

The father of modern physics and astronomy, Galileo Galilei, was outspoken, forceful, sometimes

tactless, and he enjoyed debate. He made many powerful enemies, and was eventually tried by the

Inquisition and convicted of heresy. In Galileo's time it was heresy to claim there was evidence that

the Earth went around the Sun, and in our time it is heresy to argue that there is evidence that the

speed of light in space is not constant for all observers, no matter how fast they are moving, as

predicted by Prof. Albert Einstein's sacred 1905 Special Relativity Theory. The heresies change, but

as you will find from reading this book, human nature remains the same!

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_1.html (2 of 2)1.6.2005 1:47:03

The Farce of Physics: Sacred Science

Sacred Science

The title of this book was inspired by Dr. Fritjof Capra's book The Tao of Physics. Capra, a

theoretical physicist states:

The purpose or this book is to explore this relationship between the concepts of modern

physics and the basic ideas in the philosophical and religious traditions of the Far East.

We shall see how the two foundations of twentieth-century physics quantum theory

and relativity theory both force us to see the world very much in the way a Hindu,

Buddhist, or Taoist sees it, and how this similarity strengthens when we look at the

recent attempts to combine these two theories in order to describe the phenomena of

the submicroscopic world: the properties and interactions of the subatomic particles of

which all matter is made. Here the parallels between modern physics and Eastern

mysticism are most striking, and we shall often encounter statements where it is almost

impossible to say whether they have been made by physicists or Eastern mystics. [1

p.4]

This presents an interesting question, what is the difference between modern physics and Eastern

mysticism? There was a fascinating debate concerning creation-science published in the letters

section of the journal Physics Today that directly relates to this question. The journal is sent free of

charge to all members of the American Physical Society. The Society is the largest physics society in

the world, and has world-wide membership. The letters section is popular, and is probably the most

important communicative link between the world's physicists. The following quote is from a letter by

Prof. Harry W. Ellis, a Professor of Physics at Eckerd College:

On the other hand, the scientist (or anyone) who dismisses religion because the idea of

an omnipotent God is logically inconsistent is guilty of intellectual hypocrisy. Does he

or she think that science is free from inconsistencies? Perhaps he or she is not aware of

the existence of Russell's paradox or Goedel's Theorem. Actually, aside from obvious

methodological differences, science and theology have much in common. Each is an

attempt to model reality, founded on unprovable articles of faith. If the existence of a

benign supreme being is the fundamental assumption at the heart of religion, certainly

the practice of science is founded on the unprovable hypothesis that the universe is

rational that its behavior is subject to human understanding. Through science we

construct highly useful models which permit us to understand the universe, in the sense

of predicting its behavior. Let us not commit the elementary epistemological mistake of

confusing the model with reality. Surely scientists, as well as religious leaders, should

possess sufficient maturity to realize that whatever ultimate reality there may be is not

directly accessible to mortal humans. [2]

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_2.html (1 of 9)1.6.2005 1:47:18

The Farce of Physics: Sacred Science

Dr. Rodney B. Hall of the University of Iowa writes:

Perhaps faith or the lack of it is simply a matter of indoctrination. You have been

indoctrinated by the priests or the professors or both. [3]

Dr. John C. Bortz of the University of Rochester argues:

Faith is not a valid cognitive procedure. When it is accepted as such, the process of

rational argumentation degenerates into a contest of whims, and any idea, no matter

how absurd or evil, may be successfully defended by claiming that those who advocate

it feel, somehow, that it is right. In such a philosophical environment ideas are accepted

not on the basis of how logical they are but rather on the basis of how much "feeling"

their advocates seem to have. Unfortunately, the acceptance of ideas on this basis has

been and continues to be the dominant epistemological trend in the world. [4]

Dr. Anthony L. Peratt of Los Alamos states:

It is almost amusing to see the proponents of Big Bang cosmology, who have

themselves been accused of fostering a religious intolerance toward those who question

whether the foundations of the Big Bang hypothesis are scientifically justifiable, now

getting a dose of their own medicine from biblical creationists. [5]

Dr. Carl A. Zapffe presents the view that:

Science deserves every whack it gets from the so-called creationists, for a charge of

puritanical posture belongs as much to one side as to the other. [6]

The governing body of the American Physical Society has released the following official statement

on the matter:

The Council of The American Physical Society opposes proposals to require "equal

time" for presentation in public school science classes of the biblical story of creation

and the scientific theory of evolution. The issues raised by such proposals, while

mainly focused on evolution, have important implications for the entire spectrum of

scientific inquiry, including geology, physics, and astronomy. In contrast to

"Creationism," the systematic application of scientific principles has led to a current

picture of life, of the nature of our planet, and of the universe which, while incomplete,

is constantly being tested and refined by observation and analysis. This ability to

construct critical experiments, whose results can require rejection of a theory, is

fundamental to the scientific method. While our society must constantly guard against

oversimplified or dogmatic descriptions of science in the education process, we must

also resist attempts to interfere with the presentation of properly developed scientific

principles in establishing guidelines for classroom instruction or in the development of

scientific textbooks. We therefore strongly oppose any requirement for parallel

treatment of scientific and non-scientific discussions in science classes. Scientific

http://surf.de.uu.net/bookland/sci/farce/farce_2.html (2 of 9)1.6.2005 1:47:18

Wallace - The Farce of Physics (1994).pdf

Plik z chomika:

Inne pliki z tego folderu:

Inne foldery tego chomika: